English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems almost like the people in the Gulf Coast's hurricane Katrina were not considered to be as important as those in southern California's fires. Don't get me wrong, I am very glad the response is much better. But when all is said and done, we all come into this world naked and leave with nothing (except what we have done or not done)! Whether we like it or not, it all boils down to... we are ALL the same!

2007-10-23 13:34:45 · 15 answers · asked by care4ub0y 2 in News & Events Current Events

Wow! I like all the responses I have gotten and it will be a very difficult if not impossible to pick a best answer! Desertviking_00, you are very detailed and specific in your response; I hope this has been educational to others as it has me! I love you all, and wish you the best!!!

2007-10-23 15:06:37 · update #1

15 answers

Hmmn. I don't see it. What I see is the Feds taking credit for having fixed their disaster relief problems .... when... quite possibly, the real truth is that California (and the people being affected) are just more self-sufficient (because they have the resources, not implying they are 'better' in any way).

Wow, I like DesertVi...'s answer the best. I learned a lot from it! Do I get to vote?

2007-10-23 13:42:13 · answer #1 · answered by CEO&LittleLeagueMom 4 · 1 0

California has traditionally been more wary of fires because of the prolonged droughts that make much of the state tinderboxes. Lightning, campfires, power lines even sometimes spontaneous combustion can start fires that can engulf hundreds of thousands of acres leaving nothing but black soot and charcoal in its wake. The charred remains are of trees, homes, firefighters and many many wild animals who could not escape. It's not a pretty sight. Because of the frequency of such fires, the state is ever more vigilant and makes an effort to respond as quickly and efficiently as possible. They are also not shy about accepting help from whoever offers it.
The response to the fire has nothing to do with class and everything to do with practical considerations. Fires spread very rapidly an if not contained immediately can destroy everything until it comes to a natural fire break or rain falls. In California, that could mean that a fire that starts in Southern California will consume half the state before it dies down - certainly not a very nice prospect.

2007-10-23 20:54:40 · answer #2 · answered by pepper 6 · 0 0

To everyone who claims that there has been no racial bias in the differing responses in the Katrina and Wildfire disasters...

Typically, if you are black, and you have experienced overt (and even covert) racism, you tend to look at things through a different lense. As a black person living in the city of Pittsburgh, I have experienced both. Therefore, I can understand how the differences in responses appears to have a racial undertone. People are focusing on why the residents of the 9th Ward didn't get out sooner. My issue with Katrina was the deplorable conditions the people were subjected to AFTER they were out of their homes, while in the Superdome. With respect to that, yes, I believe the race of those in the Superdome had an effect on the timeliness of the receipt of supplies. However, I also believe that California's preparedness and the leadership shown also had a profound affect on the response, as well.

White people: you don't know how it feels to be a minority, you never will, unless you conduct a social experiment and temporarily turn yourself into one. You can't say that racism does not exist just because you don't experience it.


Black people: Conitiue to protest and expose racial injustice, but do not forget to first be SELF-SUFFICIENT! We took care of our own in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s; let us return to that state of being so that we can revive our communities and take care of ourselves without relying on the government .
BTW - the majority of black people in this country are hard-working, law-abiding citizens, even though you wouldn't be able to tell that by watching the news, listening to the radio and reading blogs and Q and A columns like this.

2007-10-24 13:34:52 · answer #3 · answered by hbcubred 1 · 2 0

Heres the thing between the response between the fires and the hurricane

There were fires like these 4 years ago in 2003, after that they made changes to the way they informed people, 4 years ago, you had to figure out the fire was there, now, the fire department calls eachother, and everything is much more or ganized

The New Orleans flooding doesnt happen that often, so they didnt really have a system on how to do it

2007-10-24 04:03:25 · answer #4 · answered by Brian N 2 · 1 0

The San Diego and Southern California fires had a better response due to how the city officials stepped in.

Now research the difference of these fires and Katrina.
Also research Santa Ana winds.

People help people. No one just waits for them to send help.

Evacuations for fires and earthquakes are different from those of a hurricane.

I think people in California responded to the mandatory orders. Out of 500,000 evacuees, only 2 people died in their home by not leaving.

A whole hospital transported patients to other facilities when it was in the path of the fire.

The city officials supplied evacuation sites before the Red Cross.

And the outpouring of volunteers and donations............

God bless the firefighters !

2007-10-27 13:07:06 · answer #5 · answered by cashelmara 7 · 0 0

Yes. We are all the same. However, there is one vital difference as well. It's called competence on the part of state and local officials. The Governor of California was on the move on Sunday, going to the most threatened areas to rally the local firefighters and others. He also sent in the required certificate to the President for Federal help. Governor Blanco of Louisiana didn't show up in New Orleans or any of the downstate parishes for over a week after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. And she didn't provide the President with the certification required by law for Federal assistance until several days after Katrina hit.
Mayor Snyder of San Diego got the Qualcomm Stadium open to house evacuees. Food, water and other essentials were provided. Contrast that with Mayor Nagin and the Superdome. The Mayor of San Diego, along with his North County counterparts, got their respective transit systems geared up to pick up and move folks without cars who needed evacuation. Mayor Nagin only used two or three of the over 400 busses of his transit system to evacuate people. And they were the family members of governmental and police officials.
BTW, the Mayor of San Diego is still in his city and still running things. Ray Nagin went to San Antonio to escape Katrina's wrath.

2007-10-23 21:28:39 · answer #6 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1 0

I see what your saying.

I live in southern california and it sucks becasue you can actually feel the air outside how its being affected.

what i dont understand is with katrina all people focused on was how they needed help and supplies, but it seemed that nobody did anything. i mean, our governor issued a state of emergency like the second day of the fires and were getting help, granted things are bad but were moving along.

i just think were doing what we can and with katrina they didnt, people just said what to do and didnt do it. anyways its a touchy matter. and this is a great question.

2007-10-27 13:34:44 · answer #7 · answered by drea 1 · 0 0

It doesn't bother me, because I hope the catastrophe that followed the Katrina neglect can be avoided in California. To be honest, it's not going to impress me is the president goes to California for a few hours for a photo op. Let's get it over with and get back to the business of helping people.
And yes you are right on target. We ARE all the same on a basic level. Thank you for reminding us.

2007-10-23 20:44:18 · answer #8 · answered by Zelda Hunter 7 · 0 0

I'm also glad the california people are getting help.Do you notice the wealthy areas Bush is touring,fancy gates and spiral staircases standing in ashes.Ca. has lost about a billion dollars and eight deaths.Katrina At least 1,836 people lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina and in the subsequent floods, making it the deadliest U.S. hurricane since the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane. The storm is estimated to have been responsible for $81.2 billion (2005 U.S. dollars) in damage, making it the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.Yet he says history wil decide which was worse!

2007-10-25 15:36:43 · answer #9 · answered by George Washington 4 · 1 0

WOAH THERE.....the fires here are serious to, you know, and for your information, the Katrina stuff was announced WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY more cearly, and at least u guys got help quickly! I live in San Diegom where the fires are happening, and it IS pretty bad. The fire fighters cant stop the fires because they are to severe, so a bunch of people are losing their homes. I bet u dont konw that the fires have spread in FOURTEEN places....its serious like Katrina, only WE over here aren't getting help because they can't put out the fires...or even TRY.

2007-10-23 21:01:15 · answer #10 · answered by me. 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers